Megan is wrong . . . this time

I don't usually find a lot to disagree with in Megan McArdle's writing . . . she thinks a lot about what she writes, and that thought is usually well expressed and logical. Here, however, I find I must disagree with her on freedom of speech:

Florida has just passed a law preventing property owners from barring shoppers and employees from bringing guns onto their property and leaving them inside of locked cars. Glenn Reynolds says "Seems reasonable to me." I'm not so sure. I'm second to none in my love of the Second Amendment, but that's for the government, not private owners. My freedom of speech does not extend to telling my boss he's a flaming jerk (and aren't I lucky that James Bennet is such a great guy!). I'm not sure why my right to bear arms should include the right to bear them on someone else's land.

Megan is — very unusually for her — confusing the freedom to do something with the necessity of taking responsibility for the consequences of that action. I can tell my boss whatever the heck I like: but I also need to bear the consequences of shooting my mouth off. Just because it may cost me my job does not mean I'm forbidden to say it . . . but I would have no right (or realistic expectation) to keep my job if I tell my boss he's a "flaming jerk".